Just because it is open, doesn't mean that it is legal to use it.
I sent a connect request. Your system accepted my request. I rang your doorbell, and your electronic doorman answered and let me in. I'm not trespassing.
The protocol was specifically designed with a mechanism to allow people to share without human intervention, or to prevent it if you so desire. If you're too effing stupid to set it up in the latter fashion, you shouldn't be allowed to use it.
I had a car radio stolen once. It was stolen overnight, so presumably it had been hours since the theft occurred. I tried calling the police station via numbers in the phone book. They told me to call 911.
The phone line time these bozos were taking up to complain about a guy using internet may have delayed an ambulence getting dispatched by 45 seconds
More appropriate movie reference, "The Final Cut", a movie where someone takes your entire life which is recorded on some implant and splices a montage of events at your funeral.
What happened in the movie? Lots of comments at the funeral about "no wonder his right wrist was so strong"?
Gads, a long-running debate on slashdot. Who woulda thunk. Makes me nostalgic for usenet...
Here's my analysis. Electric power itself is cheaper than the equivalent gasoline power, at least "at the wheels." Battery tech exists (for example, the NiMH used in the RAV4 EV) that lasts 50,000-100,000 miles, which means maybe two changeouts in a car's lifetime. The technology exists, the only issue is battery price. So we have to ask, is the high price of the batteries due to something fundamental about the batteries, or is it their custom nature? Nickel costs ~$5/pound. Is there anything else in an NiMH battery that is particularly pricey? If not, it's just manufacturing cost. And for an item that could potentially be produced in the millions, that really gets amortized out. I don't see any reason mass-produced batteries that provide tolerable performance should be particulary expensive.
Moreover, even if we go with Lithium-based batteries (Lithium goes for ~$50/pound, I think), the Lithium is not consumed, so the battery being replaced should be fairly valuable in its own right for the metal, and recyclable. It should have a decent trade-in value assuming enough batteries being replaced and reused.
World cup players are bought and sold around the world
No they aren't. Good players are bought and sold around the world, yes, but for club teams. The top teams in the Champions League this past season were as good as some of the best national teams, as Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Barcelona etc. all have starting lineups comprised almost exclusively of players that play for their respective national teams. But that doesn't change the country they play for.
An individual player can choose the country they play for based on fairly tenuous family connections (many of the German team players, for example, were born in Poland), and thus a particularly good player may choose to play for a national team more likely to win the World Cup. But this requires something like a grandparent to have been born in that country (I'm not sure of the exact rules.)
EDrive has their Prius Plus, expected to cost $12,000 and make a Prius use almost all electric power. The batteries are expected to last at least five years, so assuming that "at least' gives us at most $.25/mile for a "boutique" item. That battery pack weighs 150, the standard Prius pack ~80; that doesn't seem like it would take that much space, although it would outweigh many gas tanks. Granted, the Prius+ isn't all electric, but they expect it to get 200 miles to the gallon plus the electrical costs. At $3/tank, we're talking $.015/mile plus electricity.
Technically, the battery isn't fuel costs, but it is a consumable. We don't count periodically needing to replace the gas tank or (as I had to not long ago) the fuel pump as a fuel cost. That said, the cost/mile is what we really care about, and at present batteries do factor highly in that.
But again, Edrive is a small company. Assume bulk manufacture could cut the cost in half, and give us 10 years like a Prius, and the batteries are $0.06/mile. A Boxster is rated at 20/28, so the EPA would expect more like $.12-.13/mile.
I'm not claiming build-your-own EVs are practical. But lead-acid automotive batteries, used for high-drain cold-start conditions last years and cost $100. Is a cost-effective battery really that far beyond modern manufacturing?
Well, I base my distinction upon the teachings of the Bible, so it is obvious where we part ways to me.
Except that the Bible doesn' directly speak to the point of human life beginning. If anything, it implies that human life has an immortal soul, but give no indication at what point a developing human gets a soul, nor if that's the determining factor. Even now, the Catholic Church has no position on exactly when ensoulment happens, and common law had no punishment for abortion before "quickening" -- when the mother can feel the baby move. (Ramesh Ponnuru claims "In an age without ultrasound or sophisticated home pregnancy tests, quickening was the way pregnancies were known to exist." Apparently he has never actually seen a pregnant woman.)
No. Life ends when the brain is no longer capable of thinking ever again. So symmetrically, life begins when the brain is capable of thought. I.e., not embryos.
The Toyota Prius batteries are expected to last 100,000 miles, and have done so. Battery replacement for a RAV4 EV is only expensive because it's a "boutique" item. If there were tens of thousands of EVs on the road, the cost would come down.
As for the fuel, according to Wikipedia it was 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the gas equivalent, and that was before prices skyrocketed to $3+ per gallon here. And your hands don't stink after you refuel it.
Batteries are reasonably recyclable and replaceable. They can't store as much energy as a gas tank, but so what? For the 98% of the time when I don't travel more than 40 miles in a day, it's sufficient. For the rest of the time, I can rent a car/minivan. I'd go for an EV1 for my commute, why not?
My dad got a brief bit in the WaPo editorials page about a year ago. A problem for us proles is that Wapo gets letters to the editors from big names, so it may be hard to get through, but it can be done and I think it's worth the effort.
Your Ram puts out plenty of C02; it's an inherent part of the combustion process. So no, your emissions aren't low, just the regulated ones. But yes, the intent is to have a system that factors in pollution; perhaps a tax on gas, and a rebate for cleaner burning vehicles?
Unfortunately, in reality this ends up being a regressive tax.
You would be amazed how many new vehicles I see in the poorer parts of town; the poor seem to put a large fraction of their income into cars. Regardless, should poverty be a license to pollute? It's not a license to steal, why should it be a license to "vandalize the earth"?
Assuming similar quality scalars, you're better off scaling once, from the original source data. Consider the extreme counter, upscaling from 480p to 481p, then with another device from 481p to 482p,..., 1079p to 1080p; each scaling step introduces aliasing. Two steps may be small enough you don't notice, but theoretically one step should do better.
People vote with their feet. The fact that some people choose a Hummer rather than a Prius demonstrates that they, for whatever reason, prefer a Hummer to a Prius.
Remember, though, that at least some prefer the Hummer to the Prius for safety from the other guy in the Hummer. It's a size arms race.
As I said on another site: I think as an economic environmentalist. That is, I believe the environment should be protected via economics. Pollute or otherwise damage the environment? Pay a tax based on the damage done. Generate clean power? No additional tax. That would apply to automobiles too; buy a clean-burning, efficient vehicle, and you should pay less tax than the guy in the 9 mpg H2. Coal plants would pay based on the pollution they put out; nuke plants for the cost of storing the nuclear waste. If this could be followed with reasonably accurate evaluations, then if nuke plants really are the way to go, economics should work to encourage their building. If wind is the big winner, money should flow that way. Don't have the government try to pick favorites (ethanol, hydrogen, hybrids, etc.)
This would replace things like direct subsidies, as the guy who wants to put solar cells on his roof would be comparing to a higher cost of energy from his power company, not based on some arbitrary tax break.
I recognize, however, that's a tricky thing to evaluate; how much is a lower level of airborne particulates worth? The cost per pound of low-level nuclear waste? But I think it could be more reasonably approximated than is achieved currently, with arbitrary tax breaks for hybrids, etc.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but you would actually fare worse in a car wreck in a Titanium car, as it wouldn't give as readily as steel.
So why don't we make cars out of cotton wool or balsa wood?
You want crumple zones, yes, but surrounding a stiff inner structure. That's why doors have stiff cross-beams in them, race cars have roll cages, etc. No titanium for the crumple zones, sure, but you want it for the roll cage.
See here you run the risk of putting a market value (possibly an incredibly high one) on the results of abortions.
"Cloning an embryo means taking DNA from a person and inserting it into an egg, which is then grown for about five days until it is an early embryo, a hollow ball of cells smaller than a grain of sand. Stem cells can then be recovered from the interior, and spurred to give rise to specialized cells or tissues that carry the DNA of the donor."
Funny, I don't see any mention of an abortion. You don't get stem cells from an abortion. Thus there's nothing to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it is open, doesn't mean that it is legal to use it.
I sent a connect request. Your system accepted my request. I rang your doorbell, and your electronic doorman answered and let me in. I'm not trespassing.
The protocol was specifically designed with a mechanism to allow people to share without human intervention, or to prevent it if you so desire. If you're too effing stupid to set it up in the latter fashion, you shouldn't be allowed to use it.
I had a car radio stolen once. It was stolen overnight, so presumably it had been hours since the theft occurred. I tried calling the police station via numbers in the phone book. They told me to call 911.
The phone line time these bozos were taking up to complain about a guy using internet may have delayed an ambulence getting dispatched by 45 seconds
You know, they have more than one operator.
More appropriate movie reference, "The Final Cut", a movie where someone takes your entire life which is recorded on some implant and splices a montage of events at your funeral.
What happened in the movie? Lots of comments at the funeral about "no wonder his right wrist was so strong"?
Tell them that if you don't get your credit card watched, you're going to burn the place down.
They stole my identity, not my stapler.
Gads, a long-running debate on slashdot. Who woulda thunk. Makes me nostalgic for usenet...
Here's my analysis. Electric power itself is cheaper than the equivalent gasoline power, at least "at the wheels." Battery tech exists (for example, the NiMH used in the RAV4 EV) that lasts 50,000-100,000 miles, which means maybe two changeouts in a car's lifetime. The technology exists, the only issue is battery price. So we have to ask, is the high price of the batteries due to something fundamental about the batteries, or is it their custom nature? Nickel costs ~$5/pound. Is there anything else in an NiMH battery that is particularly pricey? If not, it's just manufacturing cost. And for an item that could potentially be produced in the millions, that really gets amortized out. I don't see any reason mass-produced batteries that provide tolerable performance should be particulary expensive.
Moreover, even if we go with Lithium-based batteries (Lithium goes for ~$50/pound, I think), the Lithium is not consumed, so the battery being replaced should be fairly valuable in its own right for the metal, and recyclable. It should have a decent trade-in value assuming enough batteries being replaced and reused.
[Lead acid batteries]Workable for hybrids, but unsuitable for electric cars.
Some RAV4 EV prototypes used lead-acid batteries, and so did the EV1.
World cup players are bought and sold around the world
No they aren't. Good players are bought and sold around the world, yes, but for club teams. The top teams in the Champions League this past season were as good as some of the best national teams, as Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Barcelona etc. all have starting lineups comprised almost exclusively of players that play for their respective national teams. But that doesn't change the country they play for.
An individual player can choose the country they play for based on fairly tenuous family connections (many of the German team players, for example, were born in Poland), and thus a particularly good player may choose to play for a national team more likely to win the World Cup. But this requires something like a grandparent to have been born in that country (I'm not sure of the exact rules.)
There isn't any technology yet that can keep someone from mentally choking.
If there was, I'm sure Phil Mickelson would have bought it. Clearly he did not.
EDrive has their Prius Plus, expected to cost $12,000 and make a Prius use almost all electric power. The batteries are expected to last at least five years, so assuming that "at least' gives us at most $.25/mile for a "boutique" item. That battery pack weighs 150, the standard Prius pack ~80; that doesn't seem like it would take that much space, although it would outweigh many gas tanks. Granted, the Prius+ isn't all electric, but they expect it to get 200 miles to the gallon plus the electrical costs. At $3/tank, we're talking $.015/mile plus electricity.
Technically, the battery isn't fuel costs, but it is a consumable. We don't count periodically needing to replace the gas tank or (as I had to not long ago) the fuel pump as a fuel cost. That said, the cost/mile is what we really care about, and at present batteries do factor highly in that.
But again, Edrive is a small company. Assume bulk manufacture could cut the cost in half, and give us 10 years like a Prius, and the batteries are $0.06/mile. A Boxster is rated at 20/28, so the EPA would expect more like $.12-.13/mile.
I'm not claiming build-your-own EVs are practical. But lead-acid automotive batteries, used for high-drain cold-start conditions last years and cost $100. Is a cost-effective battery really that far beyond modern manufacturing?
Well, I base my distinction upon the teachings of the Bible, so it is obvious where we part ways to me.
Except that the Bible doesn' directly speak to the point of human life beginning. If anything, it implies that human life has an immortal soul, but give no indication at what point a developing human gets a soul, nor if that's the determining factor. Even now, the Catholic Church has no position on exactly when ensoulment happens, and common law had no punishment for abortion before "quickening" -- when the mother can feel the baby move. (Ramesh Ponnuru claims "In an age without ultrasound or sophisticated home pregnancy tests, quickening was the way pregnancies were known to exist." Apparently he has never actually seen a pregnant woman.)
A friend of mine is trying IVF with donor eggs, and got five embryos this cycle. Four of them will be destroyed. Is she participating in mass murder?
No. Life ends when the brain is no longer capable of thinking ever again. So symmetrically, life begins when the brain is capable of thought. I.e., not embryos.
In fact, nothing's a cure anymore, it's always a lengthy treatment that you have to keep taking or it stops working.
What about the HPV vaccine approved less than a month ago?
Yes, they're creating things like Viagra -- Hugh Hefner's favorite recreational drug -- but that's not the only thing.
And with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. So just edit your DNA to give yourself a thousand eyeballs, and it should be bug free!
Give me a moment... Ok, it's from an article on wikipedia. Look up "sea of vomit."
The Toyota Prius batteries are expected to last 100,000 miles, and have done so. Battery replacement for a RAV4 EV is only expensive because it's a "boutique" item. If there were tens of thousands of EVs on the road, the cost would come down.
As for the fuel, according to Wikipedia it was 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the gas equivalent, and that was before prices skyrocketed to $3+ per gallon here. And your hands don't stink after you refuel it.
Batteries are reasonably recyclable and replaceable. They can't store as much energy as a gas tank, but so what? For the 98% of the time when I don't travel more than 40 miles in a day, it's sufficient. For the rest of the time, I can rent a car/minivan. I'd go for an EV1 for my commute, why not?
My dad got a brief bit in the WaPo editorials page about a year ago. A problem for us proles is that Wapo gets letters to the editors from big names, so it may be hard to get through, but it can be done and I think it's worth the effort.
Your Ram puts out plenty of C02; it's an inherent part of the combustion process. So no, your emissions aren't low, just the regulated ones. But yes, the intent is to have a system that factors in pollution; perhaps a tax on gas, and a rebate for cleaner burning vehicles?
Unfortunately, in reality this ends up being a regressive tax.
You would be amazed how many new vehicles I see in the poorer parts of town; the poor seem to put a large fraction of their income into cars. Regardless, should poverty be a license to pollute? It's not a license to steal, why should it be a license to "vandalize the earth"?
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
No, not your write-up, but that you mailed the author of the article.
This has been in the paper, seen by many thousands. You want to try to educate one guy?
Send it to the opinions/letters to the editor instead.
Assuming similar quality scalars, you're better off scaling once, from the original source data. Consider the extreme counter, upscaling from 480p to 481p, then with another device from 481p to 482p, ..., 1079p to 1080p; each scaling step introduces aliasing. Two steps may be small enough you don't notice, but theoretically one step should do better.
Well, once you go black...
People vote with their feet. The fact that some people choose a Hummer rather than a Prius demonstrates that they, for whatever reason, prefer a Hummer to a Prius.
Remember, though, that at least some prefer the Hummer to the Prius for safety from the other guy in the Hummer. It's a size arms race.
As I said on another site:
I think as an economic environmentalist. That is, I believe the environment should be protected via economics. Pollute or otherwise damage the environment? Pay a tax based on the damage done. Generate clean power? No additional tax. That would apply to automobiles too; buy a clean-burning, efficient vehicle, and you should pay less tax than the guy in the 9 mpg H2. Coal plants would pay based on the pollution they put out; nuke plants for the cost of storing the nuclear waste. If this could be followed with reasonably accurate evaluations, then if nuke plants really are the way to go, economics should work to encourage their building. If wind is the big winner, money should flow that way. Don't have the government try to pick favorites (ethanol, hydrogen, hybrids, etc.)
This would replace things like direct subsidies, as the guy who wants to put solar cells on his roof would be comparing to a higher cost of energy from his power company, not based on some arbitrary tax break.
I recognize, however, that's a tricky thing to evaluate; how much is a lower level of airborne particulates worth? The cost per pound of low-level nuclear waste? But I think it could be more reasonably approximated than is achieved currently, with arbitrary tax breaks for hybrids, etc.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but you would actually fare worse in a car wreck in a Titanium car, as it wouldn't give as readily as steel.
So why don't we make cars out of cotton wool or balsa wood?
You want crumple zones, yes, but surrounding a stiff inner structure. That's why doors have stiff cross-beams in them, race cars have roll cages, etc. No titanium for the crumple zones, sure, but you want it for the roll cage.
See here you run the risk of putting a market value (possibly an incredibly high one) on the results of abortions.
"Cloning an embryo means taking DNA from a person and inserting it into an egg, which is then grown for about five days until it is an early embryo, a hollow ball of cells smaller than a grain of sand. Stem cells can then be recovered from the interior, and spurred to give rise to specialized cells or tissues that carry the DNA of the donor."
Funny, I don't see any mention of an abortion. You don't get stem cells from an abortion. Thus there's nothing to avoid.